The Big Bang Never Happened

#21
The CMB is a curiosity in itself. As I understand it, it is only actually uniform after corrections have been made for the presence of the Milky Way! So performing such a correction and then looking for residual ripples that are supposed to be meaningful, seems doubly crazy!

On top of that, observing radiation that follows the Rayleigh–Jeans law, seems a bit like observing something jittering that follows a Gaussian distribution (bell curve) - it could come from all sorts of causes.

My general feeling is that physics has to return to much more local concerns. Worrying about the origin/fate of the universe is just silly because the theories aren't settled and the data is pretty tenuous. I was interested in the fact that the astronomer Margaret Burbidge is supporting Halton Arp's view about red shifted quasars.

David
Ahh, a man of practical mind. I appreciate your distinction between curiosity and utility...indeed, there's nothing practical to be gained from answers to our questions of curiosity of how the universe came about and why it put us here. It doesn't change the course or outcome of life.
 
#24
Perhaps you can help me understand it a bit more. People talk about the sun (and other stars) being powered by an electric current flowing into the sun, but they don't discuss how it exists again. Thus it is as though the sun is positively charged (they say by 10 million volts) and that charge is being dissipated by the current flowing into the sun. Treating the sun as a spherical capacitor, I calculated that it would fully discharge in a couple of hundred seconds!

Nothing I read seemed to clarify that problem.

It is a shame because given the fact that the electromagnetic force is so much more powerful than the gravitational one, I am sure the theory must be partly right.

David
You're better off asking he thunderbolt forums this instead of me, I can only offer a caricature of their position.
 
#26
All discussion on the moment of the Big Bang is based on presupposition of a Big Bang.

The problem with Big Bang begins with a far more fundamental observation than red shifting. It begins with what scientists have known, but too timid to challenge--that being the preposterous notion that this massive, beyond our ability to measure something we call the universe, came from absolutely nothing. Everything came from nada--from zilch.

I really don't understand how they can talk about 10^(-33) and proceed to 10^(-11) seconds in the absence of a magnetic monopole. Four fundamental forces, yet evidence of one hasn't been found anywhere in the universe. And what about the near perfect uniformity of the CMB? How did it reach equilibrium in a time frame that would be a hundred times the speed of light? How can it be near flat? Scientists are so focused on trying to prove and support Big Bang, they are blind to other possibilities.

I get humans are conditioned toward blind faith and creationism theories beginning long before we reach the age of understanding. Rituals such as infant baptism to male circumcision set the stage for viewing the world through the lens of creationism. I get how blind faith allows them to ignore the glaring problem inherent in their absolutely nothing to instantaneous creation of absolutely everything theory. Big Bang theorists are simply men who have traded the cleric collar for a lab coat. But given the other problems here I don't understand how scientists manage to cling to this Big Bang theory.
I think this is riddled with issues. You seem really fixated on the idea about "blind faith", but there are reasons that scientists think the Big Bang happened that aren't related to blind faith. You're basically arguing from incredulity here - how could it have happened?

And then you make what is a ridiculous attempt to say that humans are predisposed to believe in a creation narrative based on baptism or circumcision... that's just an unreasonable thing to say. There are plenty of atheistic or materialistic scientists who would probably like to see the Big Bang theory cast away because of its implications of a beginning... but they don't cast it away because they think the evidence supports it.

Also saying that Big Bang theorists are "simply men who have traded the cleric collar for a lab coat" is disingenuous. As if there is no evidence whatsoever for it.

I really think you're hammering a "blind faith" point hard that isn't reasonable, and just dismissing it in part to infant conditioning is frankly absurd.
 
#27
the star would endlessly build up charge - eventually repelling the current flowing in
I think the energy radiated out from the star prevents this.

In my limited understanding of E.U. theory, power is applied via electrical input that flows across very thin interstellar plasma. Stars have a solid surface, surrounded by hydrogen gas. When powered, the gas sheath becomes an electrical anode and glows.

It's similar to how a welding arc maintains a bright glow that gives off light, heat, x-rays, etc.
 
Last edited:
#28
I think the energy radiated out from the star prevents this.

In my limited understanding of E.U. theory, power is applied via electrical input that flows across very thin interstellar plasma. Stars have a solid surface, surrounded by hydrogen gas. When powered, the gas sheath becomes an electrical anode and glows.

It's similar to how a welding arc maintains a bright glow that gives off light, heat, x-rays, etc.
Yes, but to heat the sun by electricity, the electric current needs to both enter the sun and to exit it! We are talking DC here, and if it can't exit there will be a very rapid buildup of charge on the sun.

Try connecting just one wire to an electric lightbulb!

David
 
Last edited:
#30
It might be like how florescent lights will glow inside a strong electrical field, but I really don't know.
I don't feel that is an answer - but as you say, you don't know. I suppose I wish that someone on here knows enough about the electric universe concept to explain the electrically powered sun in a better way. I find it hard to believe that those guys failed to realise that a circuit that isn't complete, isn't going to work!

David
 
#32
Do you understand how florescent lights get powered-up enough to glow without having a wire attached to them?
Sure. A high-intensity alternating electric field. Tesla experimented with such technology over a century ago, He especially favoured higher frequency alternating current for his experiments. At the low frequency of ordinary household supplies (50Hz or 60Hz), the efficiency is much lower, which is why the intensity of the field must be much higher, such as in the vicinity of a very-high voltage overhead power line.

On the other hand, in the case of a non-alternating power supply, it's pretty much useless. There is an initial 'kick' when the supply is first switched on, and typically a larger kick when it is switched off. But while in a steady-state, nothing. That is apart from the phenomena described previously, where an object acts as a sort of capacitor and accumulates or loses charge until an equilibrium is reached.
 
Last edited:
#34
Yes, they first glance it seems ironic. But Big Bang is at its essence creationism. In the beginning there was nothing, not even space and time. Big Bang is the creation of space and time, then subsequently all things in the universe. So Big Bang fits nicely into the Christian narrative.

Some speculate resistance to Turok's two brane world theory is the fact that it isn't creationism. Science and religion have both come from a creationism perspective that they refuse to consider other possibilities.
Either something came from nothing or there was always something... either case is equally weird. IMO, "every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end."
 
#38
Imagine the mental gymnastics necessary to believe something so fundamentally absurd. :)
The only way to do it is to redefine "nothing" as potentially everything or the place where all asymmetries are balanced into symmetries. Zero could be thought of as empty or the smallest number or full and the number that contains all other numbers: 0=(+)infinity + (-)infinity and every other number away from 0 could be thought of as a slightly smaller infinite set: 1=(+)infinity + (-)infinity -(-1). So thinking of zero as "full", the slightest asymmetry can result in a deviation from nothing into everything.
 
#39
The only way to do it is to redefine "nothing" as potentially everything or the place where all asymmetries are balanced into symmetries. Zero could be thought of as empty or the smallest number or full and the number that contains all other numbers: 0=(+)infinity + (-)infinity and every other number away from 0 could be thought of as a slightly smaller infinite set: 1=(+)infinity + (-)infinity -(-1). So thinking of zero as "full", the slightest asymmetry can result in a deviation from nothing into everything.
Hey Charlie Primero, I think Hurmanetar just attempted the equivalent of a back handspring, 2 1/2 layout, backflip off the vault.
 
#40
The only way to do it is to redefine "nothing" as potentially everything or the place where all asymmetries are balanced into symmetries. Zero could be thought of as empty or the smallest number or full and the number that contains all other numbers: 0=(+)infinity + (-)infinity and every other number away from 0 could be thought of as a slightly smaller infinite set: 1=(+)infinity + (-)infinity -(-1). So thinking of zero as "full", the slightest asymmetry can result in a deviation from nothing into everything.
LOL - Agreed, but I would put it differently. I think science needs to trim its focus a lot, and concentrate on phenomena that it can actually experiment with, and focus much less on grandiose theories of the universe. Where the data relates to phenomena that are far away and long ago, and where the entire time/distance framework could be wrong (Halton Arp).

David
 
Top